1)

(a)A Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom who saw blood after they had already sprinkled the blood of her Pesach, cannot eat the Pesach - because she still needs to keep one more clean day (i.e. she is not yet definitely Tehorah).

(b)There is no proof from the fact that she is Peturah from Pesach Sheni, that Ritzuy Tzitz applies even to Tum'as ha'Tehom of Zivah - because Rebbi Yosi may hold that when a woman sees blood, she is only Temei'ah from then on, and not retroactively.

(c)When Rebbi Yosi says in another Beraisa ... 've'Chen Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom she'Shachtu v'Zarku Aleha ba'Sheni she'Lah, v'Achar Kach Ra'asah, Harei Elu Metam'in Mishkav u'Moshav L'Mafrei'a - he means mid'Rabanan (mi'd'Oraisa she is Temei'ah only from then on).

2)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan asked Rebbi Oshaya, who said that a Zav who sees on his seventh day, must begin counting seven clean days again - that that should not be necessary, and that he does not even need to demolish the day on which he saw.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan's original statement 'Lo Yistor Ela Yomo' makes no sense - because: if he holds that a sighting works retroactively, then the Zav ought to demolish all seven days (because the Torah writes "v'Safar Lo Shiv'as Yamim l'Taharaso"); whereas if he holds that it works from the time that he sees Zivus, then he should not even demolish one day.

(c)After the Gemara concluded like we explained in a., Rebbi Oshaya replied 'Rebbi Yosi holds like you', which goes to prove that when Rebbi Yosi said 'Harei Eilu Mitam'in l'Mafrei'a', he meant mid'Rabanan, as we explained in 1d.

(d)There is no proof that, according to Rebbi Yosi, who holds that a Zav becomes Tamei (min ha'Torah) from the time that he sees, and not retroactively, that Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa ('Lo Amru Tum'as ha'Tehom Ela l'Mes Bilevad') comes to preclude a Kohen from Tum'as ha'Tehom of a Sheretz (but by Tum'as Mes, the Tzitz will atone for him) - because he may well be coming to preclude the owner, because he holds 'Ein Shochtin v'Zorkin Al Tum'as Sheretz'.

3)

(a)It is possible to become a full Zavah, according to Rebbi Yosi (who holds that subsequent sightings of a Zav do not connect with the previous one) - if she saw blood for full three days consecutively; or if she saw throughout the two periods of dusk (in which case the beginning of the second and third days begin with Tum'ah, and she does not any clean period at all).

(b)If a Zav (who did not have a sighting during Bein Hashemashos) counts part of the night, it is considered like one day (assuming that 'Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo') - it is not necessary to begin counting in the daytime.

4)

(a)Assuming that the Tzitz atones for Tum'as ha'Tehom even by a Kohen who is bringing someone's Pesach or Shalmei Nazir, Rav Yosef asks whether it will also atone for a Kohen who is bringing a Korban Tamid.

(b)If Rav Yosef were to hold 'Tum'ah Hutrah Hi b'Tzibur' - a Kohen who was Tamei Tum'as ha'Tehom would certainly be permitted to bring the Tamid (which is a Korban Tzibur), and there would be no She'eilah. Consequently, since in spite of that, he did ask the She'eilah, he must hold 'Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi b'Tzibur' and the She'eilah is whether, it is necessary to search for a Kohen who is not Tamei to bring it, or not.

(c)The Gemara answers this She'eilah with a Kal va'Chomer: if the Torah permits Tum'as ha'Tehom by Nazir and Pesach (where known Tum'ah is not permitted), how much more so by the Tamid, where it is.

(d)The Gemara refutes this Kal va'Chomer on the grounds that we cannot learn a Kal va'Chomer from a 'Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

5)

(a)Rebbi Akiva was trying to derive from Etzem ki'Se'orah (which is not Metamei a person b'Ohel) that a Nazir should need to shave off his hair if he touches a Revi'is of blood (which is).

(b)Rebbi Eliezer corrected him because the Din of Etzem ki'Se'orah is a 'Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai', and one cannot learn a Kal va'Chomer from a Halachah.

(c)Rava finally learns Tum'as ha'Tehom by a Kohen by the Korban Tamid with a 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Mo'ado" "Mo'ado" from Pesach.

6)

(a)The Gemara initially wants to learn from the Pasuk in Naso ...

1. ... (by Nazir) "v'Chi Yamus Mes Alav" - 'bi'Mechuveres Alav' (when it is clear to him, but not when the Tum'ah is unknown), according to Rebbi Elazar; in other words, this is the source for the leniency of Tum'as ha'Tehom by Nazir.

2. ... (by Pesach) "b'Derech Rechokah Lachem", according to Rebbi Yochanan - 'bi'Mechuveres Lachem' (that the Tum'ah must be clear to you ... as we explained by Nazir); a source for Tum'as ha'Tehom by the Pesach.

(b)Resh Lakish learns the same thing from "b'Derech Rechokah Lachem" - that the Tum'ah must be like a road, about which everybody knows, but not if it is unknown to the public.

(c)According to Rebbi Elazar (who learns that for it not to be Tum'as ha'Tehom, it must be 'Mechuveres Alav'), the Tum'ah should be clear to him; according to Rebbi Yochanan (it must be 'Mechuveres Lachem'), at least two people ought to know about it; and according to Resh Lakish (who requires 'ke'Derech'), the Tum'ah should be public knowledge. So why does the Beraisa say that at least one person needs to know about it, conforming with none of these opinions?

(d)The Gemara concludes that Tum'as ha'Tehom is Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, and the Pesukim that we quoted earlier, are merely an Asmachta.

7)

(a)It makes no difference whether the Tum'as ha'Tehom was discovered after the Zerikas ha'Dam, or whether they got to know about it even before the blood was sprinkled - either way, the Tzitz atones for Tum'as ha'Tehom.

(b)This Sugya must have preceded Rav Yosef's She'eilah on the previous Amud regarding a Kohen by Tum'as ha'Tehom by the Tamid - because they must have known that it is a Halachah before asking whether one can learn a Kal va'Chomer from a Halachah or not (which is the gist of Rav Yosef's She'eilah in 4a.).

8)

(a)The Halachah of Tzitz Meratzeh Al Tum'as ha'Tehom is confined to Pesach and Nazir (and Tamid) - but does not permit a Kohen to eat Terumah.

(b)A Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah if he walked past a spot on the street where a Mes is later discovered to have been buried ...

1. ... along its length, and also if it is ...

2. ... broken up into pieces across its width - because it is possible that he side-tracked the corpse without actually walking over it, and 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor'.

(c)The previous Halachah not apply (even to a Kohen who is walking empty-handed) - if the corpse is lying in a grave, since the entire grave is then Metamei b'Ohel (even if one were to remove the corpse from it, because the Torah writes in Chukas "O va'Kaver").

(d)Nor will it apply to a Kohen who is carrying a heavy load or who is riding a carriage - both of whom tend to sway from side to side, so that it is unlikely that they did not pass over the corpse.

9)

(a)A corpse that is found hidden in straw, dust or pebbles is hidden from view, and not subject to being seen by anyone (thereby conforming with the concept of 'Tehom', which is invisible); whereas one that is found in water, a dark spot or a cleft in the rock - is in fact visible to someone who takes the trouble to look carefully, and is not therefore similar to 'Tehom'. Consequently, it is not included in the Halachah of 'Tum'as ha'Tehom'.

10)

(a)If most of the Pesach becomes Tamei, it must be burned in front of the Beis ha'Mikdash using wood designated for the Ma'arachah; whereas if it was only the minority which became Tamei, it would be burned it in the owner's private courtyard, using his own wood.

(b)Nosar has the same Din as the minority which became Tamei.

(c)The misers used to burn their Tamei Pesach in front of the Beis Hamikdash (even though it was only a minority), in order to earn the right to use wood from the Ma'arachah.

(d)The reason for burning the majority of the Pesach which became Tamei in front of the Beis Hamikdash - is in order to shame those who allowed it to happen, because it is a disgrace to allow Kodshim to become Tamei.